…This is in response to a comment I received on my Yasukuni blog / article (My blog explains my article). The comment I received was:

Instead of burying my response in the comment section of an older post…and I figured my response would make a decent blog (as I’ve had to justify my position numerous times and feel this is a good way to let everyone read it without having to retype my response every time)… I decided to post it. So please read:

Dear Esther:

First of all, I want to thank you for your response. While I don’t’ agree with what you wrote, I am grateful for the opportunity to try and understand where you’re coming from and provide you with a response—defending why I wrote the piece the way I did.

I never said “it” (I’m assuming you mean praying at the shrine?) doesn’t cause pain to other countries. My argument was that other countries don’t acknowledge why the Japanese pray at Yasukuni. From articles I’ve read, many seem to say “they feel” it supports Japanese militarism and their imperial past… which I show is not the case.

Japan, among other countries, committed atrocities (that were military tribunals held against all offenders, more probably would have been labeled war criminals as well). You are incorrect; however. The Japanese history books used in schools continually state “Japan was bad” during the Pacific War. Furthermore, with regards to the “comfort women”, Japan has admitted and apologized many times. Please let me know the reference you’re using to show Japan hasn’t admitted or apologized, I would be curious to check it out.

As I state in my article, the Shrine is not to Hirohito and Tojo and the Kenpei-tai (憲兵隊); The Shokonsha (what is now known as the Yasukuni Shrine) was founded in 1869; not at the end of World War II/the Pacific War. Had it been created at the end of WWII and the war criminals been the sole spirits interred there, I would fully agree with you that the shrine would not be an acceptable place for Politicians (or anyone really, except maybe family) to pray for the well-being of the departed. So I don’t understand your comparison to a shrine that was founded ~60 years before the start of the Pacific War (if using 1931 as the start date) to a hypothetical Nazi shrine created sometime after Hitler would have come to power.

Imperial Japan did invade other Asian countries—but not all. Thailand was not invaded. Technically you could argue that the “asian countries” didn’t even exist; as they had already been invaded by Western powers. French Indochina (Vietnam, etc), Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), British India (Pakistan, etc), even China had lost territory through conflicts with Western nations.

I’m not a western history buff, but I believe Hitler’s conquest was similar to Napoleon’s—which was to create a “unified Europe.” However, Hitler also decided that the extermination of Jews was a necessity. On the contrary, Japan did not want to exterminate the Chinese. I fully admit they terrorized the Chinese, conducted experiments on them and other heinous acts… but an interesting fact is many Japanese refused to hand over Jewish people to the Nazi army—even though they (Japan/Korea and Germany/Austria) were allies.

I do know what “gaijin” (外人) means… “foreigner”, or “outside person.” However, I am confused by your reference. You use past tense to describe your boyfriend’s opinions about Japan (being similar to mine). Did they change, are they the same?

I must correct you again… I have studied Asian history: from Chinese Emperors, to Japanese Emperors, to the movement of the Greater and Lesser Vehicles of Buddhism… I have also read about China’s expansion, the fate of the Korean Kingdoms, the plight of the Philippines.

Let me ask you a question in response. Had Japan not attacked and taken the colonies from the Western powers… would the Asian countries that exist today, actually exist? Or remain as colonies? Do I believe Japan wanted to “liberate” the countries? No. Instead, I believe they wanted to liberate the countries FROM the Western powers, so that they would fall in line with Japan (similar to the Americans “freeing” the Philippines from the Spanish, only to conquer it for themselves).

And I was using Thanksgiving to show that there are many views regarding what people consider “history”. And for this reason, people need to read different sources of material to better understand and get a clearer picture of what “history” is. It shouldn’t be Victor’s History; it should be the closest representation of fact of what occurred.

The United States has successfully convinced Korea to meet with Japan to at least discuss North Korea and the very real nuclear threat they pose; even as (South) Korea stands firm on wanting to again bring up the ‘Comfort’ Women issue as reasons to not meet with Japan. Prime Minister ABE and President PARK will finally meet and discuss this issue while at a nuclear security summit in late march in the Netherlands.

However, the New York Times uses this article to advocate why Korea has been rejecting Japan’s request for high-level talks—focusing again on ianfu. The article cites South Korea wanting more compensation for the ianfu from the Pacific War, while Japan contends (according to the article) that the issue was settled their normalization treaty in 1965. The article doesn’t mention the Women’s Fund or the formal apologies Japan has given over the years (only refers to one near the end), but only makes reference to some politicians who have made comments about who was responsible for the ianfu. This article then claims Abe’s promise (to his constituents within his first year in office) to pray at the Yasukuni shrine deepened Korea’s suspicions for catering to the right-wing.

But, on a brighter note, this article seems to believe that Abe’s affirmation of the 1993 apology was the impetus for Korea finally agreeing to meet with Japan. My comments on his statement regarding the apology are here — I thought this would work out well for Japan. Now, if only Korea would just stop lighting matches and help create a peaceful relationship between them.

This article seems to suggest the United States was behind Abe upholding the apology; however, I disagree. In Japanese, the word for crisis is “危機” (kiki), which means “danger/fear” and “opportunity/mechanism”. I think Japan created this kiki and used it to their advantage.

Some people consider Prime Minster Abe a hawkish, right-winger; however, I feel he’s successfully treading the line between what his Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) coalition members and constituents want… as well as doing what is right for his country.

When I first heard he was (again–first time was 2007) looking at revising the apology, I spoke with another professor on this issue to get his concerns. He agreed with the Korean response that Japan would face isolation and was asking me for my opinions of why Japan would do this… Here were my three responses as to ‘why’:

1) Korea has constantly stated Japan has not apologized (enough) nor have they faced historical facts (related to ianfu–again, I try not to say “Comfort” and “Women” as I disagree with the English translation…see my blog about it here).

2) Korea has been progressively provoking Japan, with both ianfu statue/memorials throughout the United States and the publishing of a manga (comic) describing the Korean view of ianfu (who, by Japanese law, were Japanese citizens during this time)

3) Korea’s new foreign policy strategy of targeting Textbooks in the United States to change the internationally-known body of water “Sea of Japan” to the local Korean translation, or what they call the “East Sea” (I wrote an op-ed/blogged about it here as well)

I then responded that I believed Japan was merely poking Korea in the eye. This immediately launched Abe into the news in both Korea, China and worldwide (bad news is still good publicity). I stated that I believed (and hoped) Japan would come back and use this rare opportunity to again (key word) officiate the apology in 1993/1995. By doing so, hopefully more Koreans would become aware that the Japanese have made an apology, and again has been reaffirmed. Responding to some of my earlier blogs, I actually had some US military members living in Korea tell me they were unaware Japan had ever apologized for the ianfu… A sign of Korean propaganda at its best? (worst?)

Abe also used this “opportunity” to take another shot at Korea (and China) by saying, “We must be humble regarding history…Issues regarding history should not be politicized or made diplomatic issues. I think that research on history should be left in the hands of intellectuals and experts.” Will Korea and China heed Abe’s words? Unfortunately, I feel his words will fall on deaf ears.

What are your thoughts on my hypothesis? Or do you think it more believable the Japanese would bow down to American pressures? …Even though Abe clearly did not listen with regards to American pressures regarding his planned Yasukuni visit? Let me know.

Tensions continue to rise in Northeast Asia; this time between Korea and Japan. Prime Minister ABE has again revisited the possibility of reviewing the Japanese Prime Ministerial official apology of 1995, which was based off of the the “Kono Statement” given by Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei KONO in 1993. I say “again” as on March 1, 2007; he stated there was no evidence the Japanese government had kept sex slaves (“Comfort Women” or ianfu).

On 1 March, South Korean President Geun-Hye PARK, during a ceremony celebrating the opening of an exhibition on ianfu as well as the anniversary of the 1919 uprising while Korea was a colony of the Great Empire of Japan, stated that Japan will be isolating itself it it continued to deny the existence of ianfu. Her translated quote was, “Historical truth is in testimony from the survivors. Japan would only bring isolation on itself if it turns a deaf ear to their testimony and sweeps it under the rug for political benefits”.

She also pointed to follow Germany’s example in repenting from its past wrongs; and only in doing this, will South Korea and Japan be able to move forward.

What are your thoughts on this issue? Has Japan sufficiently apologized — through official statements, compensation, creating the Asian Women’s Fund, a website describing the events, etc? Or has Japan’s wavering been a signal that maybe they are just attempting to appease South Korea but aren’t heartfelt in their apology?

I have an issue with the English translation of this word. Translations always seem to have an effect on the original word when changed from the mother tongue to a foreign language. Sometimes meanings are the same, but more times than a translator needs to summarizes the idea of the word and not perform a literal translation of it. This is why I prefer to use the Japanese word, ianfu.

According to C. Sarah Soh in her book “The Comfort Women: Sexual Violence and Postcolonial Memory in Korea and Japan”, in 1978 the original term for ianfu was the term “comfort girl” (and later changed to “comfort women”

Soh’s book also states that the Japanese also rarely used the term “従軍慰安婦“(juugun ian-fu) until the 1970s. Juugun ianfu has been commonly translated as “Military Comfort Women”.

So what does “慰安婦” (ianfu) mean? I consider myself fluent in conversational Japanese, can read articles, interpret and translate… but am by no means a linguistic expert; however, I like challenges and I like pointing out different possibilities. So here is my breakdown of the word, “ianfu“:

“慰む” (nagusamu, meaning to be diverted; to forget one’s worries; to comfort), and

“安い” (yasui, meaning “Cheap”) but also has

“安まる” (yasumaru, meaning “to be rested; to feel at ease; to repose; to be relieved”) or

“安全” (anzen, meaning “perfectly safe”…remove the “zen” and you have just “safe”)

…so from this description you might be thinking, “okay comfort and cheap or comfort and easy feeling” and think “Comfort” may be a good enough word.

Let me break this train of thought and introduce another Japanese word:

手紙 (tegami): This word stands for written correspondence, i.e. a Letter.

Made of up 手 (te) for “Hand” and 紙 (kami) for “paper”.

“Paper hand”? “Hand Paper”? The point I’m trying to make here is, the meaning of the combined Kanji (Chinese letters) doesn’t always make a nice composite if you were to breakdown the two letters. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn’t. In tegami’s case, it doesn’t.

So, to 慰安 (ian), which means “Solace” or “Relaxation”.

…right now you may still want to side with “Relaxation Women”, but just contemplate if you would, as to why the word “Solace” could possibly be a definition.

Solace has many definitions, as it is both a verb and a noun (using Merriam Webster.com). To me, the noun makes more sense.

Webster defines it as: “someone or something that gives a feeling of comfort to a person who is sad, depressed, etc. : a source of comfort”

Further defined as:

1) comfort in grief : alleviation of grief or anxiety

2) a source of relief or consolation

I have an argument for an op-ed that I’m drafting; so I won’t go into details explaining why I feel a certain way (and ask you bear with me until I complete it); however, I am more inclined to believe “Solace” is the proper translation because of the ianfu‘s ability to “[alleviate] distress or discomfort”. I just won’t say why…. Yet.

So, (to me) “Women who provide Solace” is a more accurate meaning… though, I will admit it’s not nearly as catchy as “Comfort Women”.